NotHereToPlayGames

I'm still digging. I always always always test in VM first. NOTHING lands on my computers without being tested inside a VM first. So far the keys in that one link do not work (PCMark05 and 3DMark05 are not the same thing). edit -- oops, I didn't scroll down far enough, lol... still digging... edit2 -- I am generally NOT a supporter/user of XP's "adjust for best appearance" but this is what PCMark05 "suggests". I have to assume that you are using "adjust for best appearance" in this one-on-one comparison?

Third hiccup -

Second hiccup - Sorry, but NO. I will not be installing DirectX 9.0c (not if I don't "have to"). My computer has no use for DirectX as I am not a "gamer". Any other suggestions for comparing performance between two XP machines?

First hiccup - The Microsoft link sent me to a downloads page with nothing available for XP, as one would expect from a Microsoft link.

I think the way they "used to" test-compare this type of "battle" is to take a folder of 1000, or 2000, or 5000 bitmaps/jpegs/txts and "time" how long it takes 7-Zip to compress them. Uses RAM, uses CPU, uses HDD read-writes, et cetera. We compress the same exact set of files, use the same exact compression program, use the same exact compression format, et cetera. Capture a video of it so that the GPU is thrown into the mix somehow. I'm willing if you are. All I really know for sure is that this Acer Aspire is a POS but I'm too cheap and frugile to throw away something without a single scratch or blemish and still quite literally looks BRAND NEW. In part because it is sooo dd#mmnn SSLLLOOOWW that I have "no interest" in USING it for anything of real significance.

Define the parameters of such a test and I will engage in this battle. Quantifiable measurements where neither one of us can "cheat". Then we'll let the rest of MSFN members "decide for themselves". Or back down from this "stance". Either way, "no skin off my back".

Noted. You're ALWAYS right and ALL of the CPU benchmark sites are wrong! Got it!

I've owned Pentium 4s in the past - they're faster than this slow-as-duck Intel Atom. It sounds to me like you are backpeddling your scientific objectivity and now relying on "gut feelings" instead. There's a lot of benchmark web sites out there, they all cite Pentium 4s as faster than Intel Atoms. You're an objective and scientific lad. Take a step back and return to the table without subjectivity and hypotheticals. Your bias is showing at the moment and that's not you.

Perhaps. But you have a tablet and you rely on it for "real work". I most definitely want nothing to do with my old Acer as far as "real work" is concerned.

To the best of my knowledge, these "dark theme reports" are always reported by Vista users. Unsure if that is a factor at play here or not. But it is a "variable" in the equation.

Same here. But I only tested in a VM so I was hoping a "real machine" report would trickle in. Personally, I've yet to EVER be able to REPRODUCE any of these "dark theme reports" of 'outdated browser'. These "dark theme reports" show up quite frequently. I've *never* been able to reproduce. At least, "so far"... ie, "these" --

You didn't "say" anything, so I have to assume that you are inferring that other Win10 users are "like me". I assure you that they are not! They may want this file and I am 123,456,789% positive that win32s will NOT remove this file. Go ahead, ask him to, I'll grab the popcorn.

I mispoke. Apologies. I can screencap from home "if I must". I prefer not to, this computer is SLOW AS SH#T. Only runs to notify me of incoming texts or email as I do not own a phone. Then I walk across the house to a REAL computer! I cited 4 GB but that was my Celeron machine running XP. I no longer have the Celeron. I too only have 1.5 GB RAM.

Deleting things just for the sake of deleting things could easily send Supermium into the black abyss. Cloudflare "protections" being BROKEN are the "unintended consequence" of deleting code. win32s is wise! I defer to him, of course. I haven't followed the report to see if win32s has chimed in yet or not. In fact, I'll go so far as this, why not "suggest" to win32s to remove Chrome_proxy.exe from Supermium. But "you heard it here first" that I don't see that happening! It's there for a reason and we do have Win10-users that also follow Supermium and whether it evolves into something they/we/me can use in the future.

NOT TRUE. I do not now, nor then, condone deleting files without knowing their true purpose.

I personally do not condone resurrecting threads from TWO YEARS AGO, then FOUR MONTHS prior to that. It's not against forum rules though. Just "pointless" in my opinion.

Not really sure. I myself (even on Win10) do not use it and I ALSO DELETE IT! My point here is that I'm not "hinting" to others to delete a file without also INFORMING them of the REAL FUNCTION of that file. You're smart enough to see that difference. But also TOO PROUD to admit that maybe somebody else may be "more right" than you. I know because I'm that way too! "Takes one to know one." Just watch, THIS IS WHAT MSFN HAS TURNED INTO. Watch, your "hint" post of a REPORTING tool *WILL* get "likes" and my post informing users of that files REAL FUNCTION *will NOT*. Sit back and watch. That is MSFN these days.

LOL LOL

I hope you are listening to yourself. You just delete files willy nilly without even knowing what they are! Got it. I hope the Lemmings that follow your every word are also listening. And we ALL know that they are. The "likes" are about to tROLL in. Sit back and watch. We all know it! "I don't know, but Dixel deletes it and that's good enough for me."

Please do not mislead like that. Just because YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS, that does NOT MAKE IT A REPORTING TOOL. For those that REALLY want to know what chrome_proxy.exe is, please read here and even those that don't see me as part of their "inner circle" should admit that this is a "like" instead of "liking" the MISLEAD above that the rest of MSFN already knows you will "like".

Seems nobody else is biting, so I'll bite. Acer Aspire One (weaker than yours, as we have previously discussed)... WinXP x86... 4 GB RAM... Mypal 68.14.4b in multiprocess mode... Only one empty tab... No extensions... No themes... No memory minimisations - NONE... Default out-of-the-box (no rebase) -- 356.97 MB Rebased xul.dll -- 119.22 MB

Can you show a screencap? Feel free to "block out parts" as this seems to be an undue paranoia issue if you ask me. Supermium for me only has ONE. Ironically, it is IDENTICAL to my Ungoogled Chrome's! And YES, I guess that is a tad "alarming". Thorium for me also only has ONE. Again IDENTICAL to my Ungoogled. What I suspect users should be concerned with is if yours LISTS MORE THAN ONE !!! Ask any forensics expert, you cannot ID a criminal when your fingerprint only has ONE "point". Most criminal justice departments require TWELVE.

Agreed! The one I always get a chuckle out of is when the Paranoid Types talk about a Cloudflare capcha not working and how to MAKE IT WORK. The translation being, "You aren't in Cloudflare's database but you are WILLING TO COMMIT YOURSELF to that database by getting past this capcha."

I kind of maintain that only CRIMINALS need to "lose sleep" over any FINGERPRINT that they leave at the scene. But nor do I condone a laissez-faire approach where the consumer "sells his/her soul" and just "bends over and takes it" as far as PRIVACY RIGHTS go. I once canceled a credit card for one reason and one reason only - their login page would not allow a login without a FACEBOOK SCRIPT BEING ALLOWED. I do not have a Facebook account. And will not bank on a web site "selling my soul" to Facebook. Granted, that was 15-20 years or so ago. Back when coworkers spent half their day on some childish id-iotic Facebook game called Farmville. No clue if Farmville still exists or not.